Yorkie Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 It's plausible I suppose but the squabble over the up front price might still be a massive stumbling block. He'll want as close to £300m up front as he can get, potentially encroaching into the buyers' "sort the place out" fund. At which point he says forget it, I'll make sure we get promoted, see you in 12 months for the full 300mill. At which point, of course, we finish 14th in the Championship and the downsizing commences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Whitley mag[/member] are you saying that the full 300m is sitting in escrow right now? it's a lot different to say the deposit is still in escrow; which would be standard in any type of transaction. Not sure ask GC but my main point being is that subsequent to PIF’s withdrawal statement, they we’re clearly ready to complete deal, making previous statement re withdrawing due to economic factors redundant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Whitley mag[/member] are you saying that the full 300m is sitting in escrow right now? it's a lot different to say the deposit is still in escrow; which would be standard in any type of transaction. Not sure ask GC but my main point being is that subsequent to PIF’s withdrawal statement, they we’re clearly ready to complete deal, making previous statement re withdrawing due to economic factors redundant. What statement did they make after the withdrawal statement quoting change in economics? I missed that one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Whitley mag[/member] are you saying that the full 300m is sitting in escrow right now? it's a lot different to say the deposit is still in escrow; which would be standard in any type of transaction. Not sure ask GC but my main point being is that subsequent to PIF’s withdrawal statement, they we’re clearly ready to complete deal, making previous statement re withdrawing due to economic factors redundant. What statement did they make after the withdrawal statement quoting change in economics? I missed that one. Take a look in the positive thread, I think Yasir has sent you a clue today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinky Jim Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Interesting article in the chronicle........I’ve copy and pasted it below to save anyone from having to click onto their site. The Premier League were 'provisionally minded' to conclude that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) would become a director of Newcastle United as part of a proposed takeover last year. Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) hoped to take up an 80% stake in the club after joining forces with the Reuben Brothers (10%) and financier Amanda Staveley (10%). A takeover had never been closer in the Ashley era - a £340m deal was agreed - but the consortium encountered complications with the regulator, the Premier League, when it came to who was going to the club's ultimate beneficial owner. As ChronicleLive reported on August 2, the buyers offered assurances from the 'highest possible level' to try and establish that it was the PIF, rather than the Saudi government, who would be in charge. However, given how the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is the chairman of the PIF as well as the country's deputy prime minister, this was not a straightforward issue. A state formally becoming a director of a Premier League club would have been unprecedented and, if Saudi Arabia were put forward as a proposed director in the first place, the Saudi government would have inevitably faced awkward questions about pirate bay television broadcaster beoutQ. The consortium ultimately walked away last summer but, as ChronicleLive previously reported, both the buyers and seller remain committed to the deal if the Premier League were willing to give the green light. This takeover saga has now entered its next stage - arbitration - and Mike Ashley has been hell-bent on somehow finding a way forward. So much so, the Newcastle owner even took the arbitrators and the Premier League to the High Court in an attempt to remove Michael Beloff as chairman of an arbitration panel due to hear the Magpies' legal dispute with the Premier League The details of this particular case have been published on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute's website after the club's legal team, Nick De Marco, Shaheed Fatima and Tom Richards, successfully argued that there was a public interest in doing so. As a result, it can be revealed that the Premier League wrote a letter to Newcastle on June 12 last year after the league's organising body concluded that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 'would become a director' of the club. In the background to this letter, Judge Mark Pelling makes it clear that it 'was not suggested' that the Premier League had decided that Saudi Arabia 'had been or would be disqualified from being a director or that it would refuse to agree the proposed change of control'. But the letter set out the substance of the Premier League's reasoning. The letter confirms how the PIF 'expressly recognises that it will fall within the definition of director under [Premier League] rules, even though it would not be formally appointed as a director'. The Premier League agreed on this point. Having then taken external legal advice, the Premier League were 'provisionally minded to conclude' that Saudi Arabia would become a director under the rules as well'. The following was noted: PIF's directors are 'appointed by royal decree and its current board is almost exclusively composed of KSA government ministers'; PIF law puts it 'expressly under the direction of…a KSA government ministry'; the PIF's function is to 'serve the national interest of KSA'; and it would 'appear that the PIF is state-owned' and 'manages only state-owned assets'. It was made clear to Newcastle if the Premier League then decided that Saudi Arabia will not become a director, then it will 'proceed to a decision' on the application of the owners' and directors' test for the individuals who have been declared, including the PIF. However, if the Premier League board decided that Saudi Arabia also needed to be regarded as a future director, there had to be a 'declaration in respect of KSA and the board's decision' and the application had to 'be made in respect of KSA also'. As Judge Pelling points out, Newcastle disputed this conclusion and the 'lawfulness of the process by which it was arrived at' by the Premier League. The Premier League 'contends' that the PIF is 'controlled by the government' of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but Newcastle 'does not accept' that - hence why this dispute has gone to arbitration. Judge Pelling said that the text of the letter 'makes it abundantly clear that the sole issue' that the Premier League had decided - and then only provisionally - was that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 'satisfied the definitions so that it was to be regarded as a director'. Therefore, according to Judge Pelling, the 'only dispute that can or will be decided in the current arbitration is whether this conclusion is correct' The three-man arbitration panel - Michael Beloff, Lord Neuberger and Lord Dyson - will make that call. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jinx Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 How very chronicle to print something that was news last week and widely covered as if it was some sort of new information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Just the time it takes them to type it up using a single finger on each hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Ashley hates to lose 100 pence never mind 100 million pounds. What the hell is he thinking, man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinesstan Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Ashley hates to lose 100 pence never mind 100 million pounds. What the hell is he thinking, man. He's had an extra years worth of TV money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Ashley hates to lose 100 pence never mind 100 million pounds. What the hell is he thinking, man. He's had an extra years worth of TV money. Doesn't matter with Ashley. No amount of money is enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishMagpie Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Will he not just pocket the parachute money? How much is that nowadays? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 I believe the term is trouser. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawK Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 I believe the term is trouser. I looked this up, apparently the earliest time this was used as a term on this forum was to reference Kieron Dyer not bothering to earn his money, courtesy of user '2sheds' in 2007: https://www.newcastle-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=43352.msg940653#msg940653 McCreery was a far more dedicated player than dyer can ever dream of. The little bastard should have been peddled the moment he refused to play for us. Lets face it he has done nothing of any note since then (apart from trouser a few million from us) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Ashley hates to lose 100 pence never mind 100 million pounds. What the hell is he thinking, man. He's had an extra years worth of TV money. Aye and of course the club has run on fairy dust in that time so that money is all his. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinesstan Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Ashley hates to lose 100 pence never mind 100 million pounds. What the hell is he thinking, man. He's had an extra years worth of TV money. Aye and of course the club has run on fairy dust in that time so that money is all his. It's always his wallet that opens when we're spending it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 I believe the term is trouser. I looked this up, apparently the earliest time this was used as a term on this forum was to reference Kieron Dyer not bothering to earn his money, courtesy of user '2sheds' in 2007: https://www.newcastle-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=43352.msg940653#msg940653 McCreery was a far more dedicated player than dyer can ever dream of. The little bastard should have been peddled the moment he refused to play for us. Lets face it he has done nothing of any note since then (apart from trouser a few million from us) It always makes me think of Mike's wide leg jeans being used great escape style. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 As was mentioned a few pages back, the lack of action regarding Bruce massively concerns me for the chances of the takeover. No, it’s not legally possible for the outside influence and would be completely wrong. But if you’re about to spend £350m on a long-term project, you’d have a quiet word in MA’s ear. The buyers are either not as confident as they express via the press, or they have done so and MA has ignored them or they have confidence in Bruce to turn it around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jinx Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 If the buyers could have a word and were also of the persuasion that Steve Bruce was the right man for the job, you’d have to question what sort of owners they’d be. I think getting the club for 80 million cheaper and not having to go through the PL owners bullshit might be an acceptable plan b for them. You can be sure Mike Ashley will time it so he can pocket the parachute money before any transaction is completed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 If the buyers could have a word and were also of the persuasion that Steve Bruce was the right man for the job, you’d have to question what sort of owners they’d be. I think getting the club for 80 million cheaper and not having to go through the PL owners bullshit might be an acceptable plan b for them. You can be sure Mike Ashley will time it so he can pocket the parachute money before any transaction is completed People are really kidding themselves if they think the takeover happens if relegation occurs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 If anyone thinks Ashley has some kind of master plan think again. We've been here so many times before, he isn't doing 4th dimensional chess, he is cheap, when he does invest he does it bady and is stubbon so won't make changes when necessary. It's pathetic cos I hate how quickly managers get sacked normally these days but part of that his hiring ones with at least some level of competance in the first place. Letting Rafa go was a terminally stupid thing. Buying Joelinton was a terminally stupid thing. Hiring Steve Bruce was a terminally stupid thing. Keeping Steve Bruce is a terminally stupid thing. this is how Mike Ashley operates, desperate gamble to save every penny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BirtleyMag Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 The only hope we have is if he is more desperate to set up shop in the Middle East than he is confident on gambling on us coming back up. I agree that it’s very unlikely he’ll ever lower his price though. If he won’t spend 4 million of the clubs money to preserve its current value then there’s no way he’ll be happy to lose out on 100 million himself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danh1 Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 The boot cut jean wearing cunt really has fucked this, like. Paying a fucking fortune for the likes of De Marco and that lass to take on the PL whilst allowing a fat, no mark, unwashed heffa to drag us into an unnecessary relegation, which will ultimately fuck any chance of a takeover. He is going to have to spend money to get us back up if he wants to sell the club for anywhere near what he agreed with the consortium. It just makes no sense at all, absolutely baffling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 The only hope we have is if he is more desperate to set up shop in the Middle East than he is confident on gambling on us coming back up. I agree that it’s very unlikely he’ll ever lower his price though. If he won’t spend 4 million of the clubs money to preserve its current value then there’s no way he’ll be happy to lose out on 100 million himself. Still doesn’t answer the question why risk losing up to half the value of the deal if he knows there is a good chance the deal will go ahead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 The fact Bruce is still in charge is what’s making my hopes of this going through even more slim. If they were still confident of buying us then surely they’d be on at Ashley to sack the numpty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts